"The issue of democratic control over big tech is hardly discussed at all"

What do you hope to set in motion with the Caroline Pauwels Lectures?
“Our former rector, Caroline Pauwels, asked herself how we can put major societal issues on the agenda and encourage the public to think critically about them. The aim of these lectures is for people to learn something new and leave with fresh questions. The intention is not to hold a debate for its own sake, but rather to foster a conversation that offers greater depth.”

The first edition focuses on big tech and democracy. Why did you choose this topic?
“Because it is one of the most pressing issues of our time. Our democracy is built on a model of society in which information is subject to oversight and we elect our politicians, who are ultimately entrusted with power. But today, we can sense that this power and democratic oversight are no longer aligned with the new power structures created by big tech.”

And what do you think we can do about it?
“This is a debate that is still far too rarely held. The first step is to recognise that we are losing a significant degree of democratic control over power, information and society. Belgium cannot solve this alone. Agreements need to be reached and rules established at least at European level, if not higher. With hardly any rules in place, it feels as though we have entered a kind of Wild West, where our elections are being manipulated both by external groups and states, and by big tech itself. These companies have an influence on almost all of our thoughts, because the information we consume shapes the framework within which we think. That is deeply concerning.”

“Big tech determines almost everything we think”

Could it also be that politicians are reluctant to respond because they believe they themselves can benefit from the situation? In Brazil, Lula narrowly won the election thanks to a carefully orchestrated social media campaign.
“Possibly, but I think social media is still seen too much as simply a tool for spreading one's own ideas and building a following. In reality, these are just small islands in a much bigger picture. There is too little awareness of how we are all ultimately being pushed towards a form of tunnel vision, which narrows our openness to society. It is true that, in elections, we can choose whether or not to vote our politicians out of office. But we have no control over how information reaches us, or over how big tech is increasingly taking control of more and more aspects of our world.”

“Let me give you an example: Musk decides whether and to what extent Starlink can help Ukraine in the war. A significant part of Ukraine's economy, as well as its defence capabilities, is influenced by access to Starlink. That gives Musk enormous power, and nobody has any control over it. A discrepancy has emerged between the people we elect and the actual power they wield. That power has shifted towards a handful of major corporations.”

In the early days of the internet, the people behind it were quite naive. They wanted to connect people. And until relatively recently, most tech companies in Silicon Valley were broadly pro-democracy. What happened?
“Greed took over. Tech companies realised they could become unimaginably wealthy. This sparked a competition between the owners of these major companies: who would become the richest? I'm perfectly happy for people to be as rich as they want. But the way they are going about it crosses a moral line. I know first-hand that YouTube tries to draw viewers into conspiracy theories. Once people fall down that rabbit hole, they spend longer on YouTube and therefore see more advertising. It is this greed that is destroying society. Zuckerberg and his peers apparently don't care, because the race to become the richest person in the world matters more to them.”

“This is the moment to consider what kind of democratic platform we need to protect our democracy and society”

Whoever controls the digital infrastructure wins the elections.
“Yes, that is largely true. At the same time, several elections have shown that this is not necessarily the case. Even without big tech on your side, you can still win. The question is which direction things are heading in. In my view, the current trajectory is not particularly positive. That is why this is the moment to consider what kind of democratic platform we need to protect our democracy and society. Ultimately, it is the push towards tunnel vision that narrows dialogue. That is extremely dangerous for democracy. And this is not just about parliament and government, but also about how people with different opinions interact with one another.”

In the Middle East, Israel is a dominant player militarily, but also technologically. Does it influence elections there as well?
“Frankly, I don't think so. China's approach to social media is different, for example. China primarily seeks to convince the world of its intentions; it is more of a propaganda machine. Russia, on the other hand, tries to divide people and weaken societies. Its aim is to polarise. The United States pursues a policy of protecting itself against this, while at the same time its own political landscape is being influenced and shaped by domestic big tech companies. Big tech has its own agenda, which is not necessarily concerned solely with the interests of the United States.”

“If we do nothing, things will only get worse”

With Brexit, Europe has already experienced a degree of external interference. Is the worst yet to come?
“Not necessarily. I'm an optimist: ‘Optimism is a moral duty.’ If we do nothing, things will get worse. But we can take action. One thing Europe can do is tackle monopolies in information and certain industries. These companies have become so large that their owners wield too much power. Monopolies need to be broken up. Competition law already exists, but enforcing it requires democratic legitimacy. The demand for action must come from society. But once again, we first need to agree on what exactly is going wrong.”

But is that really the most urgent issue? Surely everyone is aware of what is happening by now?
“I hear very little about it. Just look at the past twelve months. Who, and I'm not just talking about politicians, has tried to put this issue on the agenda? Books are being written and interviews are being given. But the subject barely features in political debate. Not at Belgian level, nor at European level. There is a great deal of attention devoted to budgets, the war in Ukraine, elections and migration. Yet the issue of democratic control over big tech is hardly discussed at all.”